SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois House advanced a partial ban of red light cameras in the state Wednesday with strong bipartisan support, but some said the bill was a “piecemeal” approach because it does not apply in several communities.

Red light cameras are devices some municipalities install at intersections to detect drivers running through red lights or turning without coming to a full stop. Those who are caught violating traffic laws on camera are sent citations by the municipality where the offense occurred.

Home rule is a status that state law confers to any municipality with more than 25,000 residents or other municipalities that choose to adopt it by referendum. Those municipalities have greater authority to control their own local affairs.

According to the Illinois Municipal League, 217 of Illinois’ 1,298 incorporated municipalities have home rule powers.

Per state law, however, red light cameras are currently only allowed in municipalities within Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties, so opponents of the bill said only 20 municipalities that currently have red light cameras would be affected.

McSweeney’s bill advanced amid growing opposition to the red light camera industry as Safespeed LLC, one of the state’s main companies that supply the machines, has been the subject of ongoing federal investigative activity.

McSweeney said the measure was similar to one he passed in the House in 2015. He alleged that bill was killed in the Senate at the time by now former-Sen. Martin Sandoval, a Chicago Democrat who recently pleaded guilty to bribery and tax fraud charges and admitted in court that he viewed himself as a “protector” of red light cameras.

The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times each reported that during a Tuesday, Jan. 28, hearing in which Sandoval pleaded guilty, he told a judge, “I used my office as state senator to help SafeSpeed — er, company A ... (and) be its protector in the Illinois Senate and influence other officials to roll out the red light camera program in Illinois.”

McSweeney said his bill was about fighting corruption and a program that targets low-income Illinoisans.

“I am fighting hard to end the corrupt Illinois red light camera program,” McSweeney said in a statement. “These cameras are not about safety. They are all about producing revenue and lining the pockets of political insiders. It is wrong; it is corrupt and it must stop.”

Like the 84-4 vote to advance the bill on the House floor, criticism of red light cameras has been largely bipartisan in recent weeks.

State Comptroller Susana Mendoza, a Democrat, echoed that sentiment in January when she announced the state would no longer assist municipalities in collecting red light camera fines.

But much of the floor discussion Wednesday centered on why McSweeney’s bill exempted home rule municipalities.

McSweeney said he would be ready to support a complete ban if the bill got as far as a floor vote, but no such measure has done so.

Rep. Diane Pappas, D-Itasca, argued the bill takes aim not at red light cameras but smaller communities that are already restricted on what safety measures and revenue streams they can put in place.

“What we’re doing by passing this bill is not banning evil red light cameras, we are depriving non-home rule communities of rights that home rule communities will continue to have,” she said.

Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, however, strongly supported the measure, saying red light cameras “have been a crux in the black and brown communities for years.”

“Red light cameras have not helped anyone in the communities,” she said.

While only four representatives voted against the measure, five voted present and 17 did not vote on the matter. It will head to the Senate for debate in committee before it can come to a vote in the full chamber.

Article Comment Submission Form

Please feel free to submit your comments.

If you are looking for the SPEAK OUT submission form, you can find it by clicking here: Speak Out Form

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it.

NOTE: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number and email address will not be displayed or shared.